a bistro style tavern, bar in central Australia. Uluru national park ( Yulara resort -Ayers Rock)
( I worked there for 9 months as a purchaser)
Situation:

Jimbo was affectionately referred to as a "bushy"or "bush pig", a guy who was born and raised in the tough desert regions of Australia, of Anglo Saxon origins.

He enters the tavern with his massive and very friendly yet intimidating German Shepherd dog and proceeds to solicit donations from the various tourists and resort workers enjoying a night out with the ambition that when he gets to a certain amount he would get up on a small stage and sing 5 songs.

Some of the locals know and aided him by spruiking his many talents as a vocalist to the many enthusiastic tourists present.
After collecting about $1oo in a tin bucket he gets up on the small stage and grabs the mike.

Could he sing? Nope! Not a note!
In fact by the end of the first 20 seconds or so most every one knew they had been had.
But he continued to sing, if one could call it that, utterly tone deaf, and akin to a sober drunk singing his way home. 4 songs yet to go...!

As per routine, one of his mates started handing the tin bucket around again, but this time it was with the ambition that when they had enough money given to them he would stop singing.
In the end he had made over $200 by the time he left the tavern with his take away "slab of beer" under his arm and dog in tow, complaining how he only got to sing one song. A successful night. Bigly funny !
=====
The point being is that under normal circumstances people can correct for their gullibility by removing the conman from office/ board/executive etc.
The constitution of the USA does not have any provision to stand down an elected government and force an early election.
The USA constitution needs to empower people to do the same, under specific criteria as a failsafe for unscrupulous actors.

The fear of tyranny is real, especially in the USA mainly because the system that forms the democracy is incomplete. IMO

The people, not congress, need the ability to vote for another election...

You guys - not just you - deal in that kind of stuff continually, and in lieu of reason or sense. And you have managed to make yourselves prominent in US politics, so that in the public discussion the advocacy of gun control has become identified with irrational and fantasy based authoritarian blithering lacking any visible self-awareness or comprehension of basic issues at hand. The fallout is that between you and the NRA, reasonable people end up flipping coins and dividing their votes. And that not only ruins the efforts to obtain sane gun control in the US, it damages liberal politics in general. It's a damn mess.

Click to expand...

While ignoring how individuals such as yourself muddy the water, straddling the fence, demanding that gun control is necessary, while poo pooing anyone who dares to even utter the words "gun control".

Science is ignored, studies are ignored. As soon as studies are presented, you dismiss them. And you aren't the only one. For example, you argued earlier that there were statistics and/or studies for self defense with the use of guns, remember? The numbers vary wildly, from millions to hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands per year. One such study is the Kleck-Gertz survey, which predicted a ridiculous amount. So scientists put it to the test. They looked at Arizona, over a 3.5 month period:

The first scientific attempt was a study in Arizona, which examined newspaper, police reports and court records for defensive gun uses in the Phoenix area over a 100 day period. At the time Arizona had the 6th highest gun death rate, an above average number of households with firearms and a permissive “shall issue” concealed carry law meaning that defensive gun use should be higher than the national average.

Extrapolating Kleck-Gertz survey results to the Phoenix area would predict 98 defensive killings or injuries and 236 defensive firings during the study period. Instead, the study found a total of 3 defensive gun uses where the gun was fired, including one instance in which a feud between two families exploded into a brawl and several of the participants began firing. These results were much more in line with (but still substantially less than) extrapolated NCVS data, which predicted 8 defensive killings or injuries and 19 firings over the same time frame.

Brand new data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a non-partisan organization devoted to collecting gun violence data, further confirms Hemenway’s suspicion that Kleck and Getz’s findings are absurd. The archive found that for all of 2014 there were fewer than 1,600 verified defensive guns uses, meaning a police report was filed. This total includes all outcomes and types of defensive uses with a police report—a far cry from the millions that Kleck and Getz estimated.

Many gun advocates will protest at this point that not all defensive gun uses are reported to the police, which is true. However, Kleck’s surveys and the NCVS reports indicate that more than 50 percent of such incidents are reported to the police. This would indicate 3,200 defensive uses on an annual basis, still well short of what surveys suggest. Further, if there actually are 50,000 defensive gun uses as NCVS’ data suggests, or more than 1 million as Kleck and Getz’s surveys claim, that would mean only 3.2 percent or 0.16 percent respectively of defensive gun uses are reported to the police. Believing that such a small fraction of incidents are reported is indulging in fantasy.

Kleck and Gertz often defend their paper by claiming that their results are consistent with the findings of other private surveys. They explain that the reliability of a survey should be judged by the degree to which it coheres with the estimates of other surveys. However, using a tool we know to be flawed, over and over again, does not increase the quality of estimates deriving from the tool—it merely produces convergence to an arbitrary number. Surveys, for example, regularly show that men have sex with women more often than women have sex with men. Survey results don’t mean anything if they don’t pass muster with reality.

​

Kleck's study becomes even more absurd when one considers a point he had to eventually concede:

Kleck himself admitted in 1997, in response to criticism of his survey, that 36 to 64 percent of the defensive gun uses reported in the survey were likely illegal—meaning the firearm was used to intimidate or harm another person rather than for legitimate self-defense. His conjecture was confirmed by a Harvard study showing that 51 percent of defensive gun uses in a large survey were illegal according to a panel of 5 judges. This was even after the judges were told to take the respondents at their word, deliberately ignoring the tendency of respondents to portray themselves in a positive light.
​

Which brings me to the next point. No one is arguing an outright ban on firearms in the US. You (and others) keep attributing a gun ban to my stance. I have never argued for that for the US. For a few reasons. To the one, there are simply too many guns in American society to institute an outright gun ban. To the other, guns are such a part of the American psyche, that it would be impossible to implement.

Understand now?

What others have advised, such as a national gun registry, stricter and more comprehensive background checks for private and licensed sales, mandatory firearms safety lessons for gun owners, a requirement that guns be locked away, preferably separate to bullets, for example, punishing irresponsible gun owners who have their firearms stolen or used in other crimes, a restriction on capacity, allowing Government organisations such as the CDC to study gun violence and the rate of gun violence and to study what forms of gun controls could work in the US, would be a huge step in reducing the thousands of deaths from the use of firearms in the US. Such steps would not prohibit Americans from owning firearms to defend themselves against the State and their fellow Americans, and it would help reduce the sheer number of deaths and injuries resulting from firearms.

A survey of 1,613 gun-owners published in 2017 found that 42% had acquired their most recent weapon without a background check. The internet has made sales even harder to police. A probe by private investigators hired by New York city in 2011 found that 62% of online private sellers agreed to sell guns to people who stated they “probably could not pass a background check”.

Nineteen states and Washington, DC, now require background checks for at least some private gun sales. Most people seem to comply. In states that regulate private sales, 26% of gun-owners who bought their guns privately said they did so without a background check, compared with 57% in states without such regulations.​

I would imagine that these are not acceptable figures for anyone. At least, I would hope that this is not acceptable. The article also looks at issues like stricter background checks, red flag laws where people who may present a danger to themselves or others (such as Cruz, the shooter in Florida recently), can have their firearms removed from their care temporarily.. Gun storage laws are also covered, where they found that a law requiring safe storage has saved lives in States where this is in place.

No one here is pushing for an outright gun ban in the US. So it would pay for you to not attack my "kind", when the reality is that I am attempting to discuss reasonable gun control laws in the US that have been shown to save lives and it would be best to address the issue without pushing false narratives, such as the self defense narrative, that has been proven to be false repeatedly.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

There is no rate of fire difference between those two rifles. So you're advocating for banning most rifles and handguns.

Click to expand...

Your two sentences are presented as if the second one follows. It doesn't.
I said nothing about "banning", even high RPM weapons like the Ruger there, and plenty against it - including explicitly inviting you to participate in getting the law right.
And you forgot about the magazines.

My point was that the 2nd Amendment is not going to protect high RPM weapons and large magazines, which most people want severely restricted, unless you corrupt the Court even beyond its current borderline state. And if you do that, your goals of freedom and such are living on borrowed time.

Btw: note the slippery rhetoric in the descriptions of the two rifles in #408. For example: "Semi automatic but for some reason is commonly called an assault rifle". "For some reason"? As you must know, because you are calling other people ignorant, the reason that thing is called an "assault rifle" is that it was marketed as such, labeled an "assault rifle" by the sales and advertising departments of its manufacturers - that was before the too common nature of the kinds of assaults too many of its buyers had in mind became part of the ugly common knowledge of our day.
- - - -

Science is ignored, studies are ignored. As soon as studies are presented, you dismiss them.

Click to expand...

That's a lie.
Nobody here - much less your addled self - has spent half the time linking, analyzing, dealing with, focused on the research studies posted here (linked by me, linked by you, all of them) as I have. I actually read them, and follow their arguments - afaik I'm the only gun control advocate here who has presented evidence of doing that.

If anyone is ignoring the science, it's the people who post sciencey crap that five minutes of actual attention and enough memory to blow their nose suffices to dismantle. Here's the latest:

Uh, no, I've been arguing right along that we really don't have much in the way of rigorous studies on that topic - no good ones, anyway. We can extrapolate from proxy stats, census data, etc, but there are huge gaps in the research, especially in the area of passive effects and effects in already violent situations - the missing event problem, the chicken and egg problem, the too threatening law enforcement problem, the innocent victim problem, etc.

And this displays them all, though it's better than most:

So scientists put it to the test. They looked at Arizona, over a 3.5 month period:
The first scientific attempt was a study in Arizona, which examined newspaper, police reports and court records for defensive gun uses in the Phoenix area - - -
- - - the study found a total of 3 defensive gun uses where the gun was fired,
- - - -
These results were much more in line with (but still substantially less than) extrapolated NCVS data, which predicted 8 defensive killings or injuries and 19 firings over the same time frame.

Brand new data compiled by the Gun Violence Archive, a non-partisan organization devoted to collecting gun violence data, further confirms Hemenway’s suspicion that Kleck and Getz’s findings are absurd. The archive found that for all of 2014 there were fewer than 1,600 verified defensive guns uses, meaning a police report was filed.

Click to expand...

Look, of course the entire goal was to debunk a bad study by some pro-gun junkers. Mission accomplished. But nothing in there comes close to being an accurate assessment of the role of guns in self defense - as so many times before in studies posted here, and as you've see at least three times directly addressed, they are counting people getting shot and (at least this is a marginal improvement) shooting, as reported to the police. Hello? Have we not been there many times?

Not that you're likely to remember - look at this, addressed to me:

What {you, iceaura, and} others have advised, such as a national gun registry, stricter and more comprehensive background checks for private and licensed sales, mandatoryfirearms safety lessons for {some} gun owners, a requirement that {some} guns be locked away, preferably separate to bullets, for example, punishing irresponsible gun owners who have their firearms stolen or used in other crimes, a restriction on capacity, allowing Government organisations such as the CDC to study gun violence and the rate of gun violence and to study what forms of gun controls could work in the US, would be a huge step in reducing the thousands of deaths from the use of firearms in the US. Such steps would not prohibit Americans from owning firearms to defend themselves against the State and their fellow Americans, and it would help reduce the sheer number of deaths and injuries resulting from firearms.

Click to expand...

Half of those are my recommendations, already posted on this forum. The others are bad ideas - that imho won't work, either. So I added the courtesy, in brackets, and bolded the specific ones you could have linked to me many times over the years.

Which brings me to the next point. No one is arguing an outright ban on firearms in the US. You (and others) keep attributing a gun ban to my stance.

Click to expand...

First: Lots of people are arguing for gun bans in the US, here and in the outer world.
Second: Gun confiscations and some bans are inherent and unavoidable and obvious in a good many of your recommendations and arguments, as are various steps of no value except to set up such events. I have quoted the relevant posting when pointing this out to you, which I do as evidence for my own argument (the bothsides jamb). It doesn't matter whether you intend this, see, in my argument: what matters is that other people, reasonable people, do not overlook such matters. The less aware you are, in fact, the more threatening - and by "you" I mean the US political faction you represent here.
And I have explained this to you many times, in detail. Your response has been lies, slanders, and misrepresentations.

Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement

But magazine size and fire rate and so forth, which are the real issues, can be restricted without getting tangled in mechanical design details. And most people want to do that.

They will do that. You can advise and consent, or not, as you choose.

Click to expand...

I understand they think it makes a difference, but it does not.

It takes 1-5 seconds (depending on training) to change a magazine. Are they going to limit how many magazines you carry? CA (etc) has limits and what, exactly, has it done? Is there an effect on crime?

Not in US setup democracy, where the State comprises the community of people rather than a solitary individual will. It is instead the reasoned foundation of government, wherein the known instabilities and irrationalities of individuals (kings, despots, aristocrats, landlords, pirates) are explicitly checked in their power to do harm.

Click to expand...

erm... you just supported my point.

the State, comprised of the people, may well be able to mitigate the "known instabilities and irrationalities of individuals (kings, despots, aristocrats, landlords, pirates)" but it is still comprised of the people, and therefore has the same limitations of the people, they're only slower to act.

Disarming the people under an "individuals (kings, despots, aristocrats, landlords, pirates)" requires the use of force and legal challenge backed by force (the state). as such, this still means you require "people" armed and utilising delegated authority, so you're arming the people, but selectively based (most likely) on their choice to follow the "individuals (kings, despots, aristocrats, landlords, pirates)".

Putting your faith in the state is still logically inconsistent when it's obvious that the state cannot be everywhere at once and relies upon the people to actually enforce it's will. It also means removing individual responsibility, which means anyone displaying natural instinct for survival is acting against the state and it's authority.

The powerful must answer to reason and the publicly debated free will of the powerless: basic principle.
And an individual with the capability of easy mass slaughter is powerful.

Click to expand...

I am challenging the first part of that:
The powerful only answer to reason and the publicly debated free will of the people when those people are empowered. The powerful do not have to answer to the powerless. This is best demonstrated by history. The powerless have no power to enact or enforce change unless they challenge said powerful en masse (which empowers the people) or they're armed and able to affect change (which means they'er not powerless).

until rogue conservative judges at the behest of a 40 yearlong campaign by the NRA to rewrite the meaning of the second amendment so people like you could feel better about packing heat in public. i suggest instead of acting all aggrieved and outraged you pull your heads out of your asses and learn some fricking history.

Click to expand...

you can only change how the 2nd is interpreted. By all means, please show where the second amendment doesn't actually state that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed in any link that quotes the Constitution.

That is factual and supported by the above source links and references I produced. so as I was not "acting all aggrieved and outraged", your argument is irrational and nonsensical

Nobody needs the AR-15 rate of fire and lethality to keep and bear for any non-military purpose, not even a well-regulated militia.
Your choice.

Click to expand...

nonsensical and illogical.

If your argument is based entirely on rate of fire, as noted already by Vociferous here, then you target all similar capable firearms, meaning any semi-automatic weapon (and any revolver in the hands of the competently trained)

The one thing not being addressed by most anti-gun people, or any person discussing gun legislation, is the core problem of violence or the issues of mental health. More importantly, no one has actually provided any means to enforce the existing laws which would have mitigated most of the school shootings and mass killings of the past two decades. This simple fact is best demonstrated by the epic failure of the "state" to actually do anything about the Florida school shooting whereas Everett (WA) was competent enough to stop one before it happened, and the LE resource officers in Maryland actually did their job, the former demonstrating effective enforcement of the law.

A more serious and topically relevant question would be: Why are the anti-gun movements not targeting the failures of the legal system, law enforcement officers and the state?

If your argument is based entirely on rate of fire, as noted already by Vociferous here, then you target all similar capable firearms, meaning any semi-automatic weapon (and any revolver in the hands of the competently trained)

Click to expand...

Whatever, we can figure it out. It's not an impossible task to sort out.

QUOTE="spidergoat, post: 3515748, member: 9733"]I have an idea. Enforce existing laws.[/QUOTE]
I totally agree with that.
Problem is, not everyone else does ... and most people are all up in arms when the state tries to fund it

it's truly not getting anywhere near the same attention the gun control advocates are getting... nor is the rational centrist response by some getting a whole lot of attention. I see the fanatical left fighting the fanatical right, and few bipartisan advocates are getting the attention this debate needs.

Both bills above were advocated by survivors of the recent FL shooting. Only one actually will address the problem, IMHO, and that is the latter bill.
the banning of the AR and "assault weapons" will not stop the school shootings. that is fact.

Whatever, we can figure it out. It's not an impossible task to sort out.

Click to expand...

How?
we have comments in this thread alone that mimic the national debate - they demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of firearms, yet they're calling for legislation.

there are people who argue "high powered" yet it can't be defined: how do you enforce a law that can't be defined? Ban everything? Anything over [x] feet per minute?

some people label the AR-15 as a military grade weapon: it's not. it's only capable of semi-automatic fire. It looks scary, but it's no different than any other semi-automatic .223 hunting rifle.

The AR is a gas operated semi-automatic weapon's platform. Gas operated semi-automatics have been around and used since 1883-1884 ( Jaroslav Lugs (1973). Firearms Past and Present. Grenville Publishing Co Ltd ).

IMHO - people have a negative bias towards the AR due to it's visual similarity to the M-16. It's irrational and not logical. all bullets are designed to do damage or kill, so targeting a specific bullet makes as much sense as targeting all coloured arrows that aren't high-visability orange to be banned because it's hard to see them coming.

The point being is that under normal circumstances people can correct for their gullibility by removing the conman from office/ board/executive etc.
The constitution of the USA does not have any provision to stand down an elected government and force an early election.
The USA constitution needs to empower people to do the same, under specific criteria as a failsafe for unscrupulous actors.

Leave us not to forget:
From October 2, 1919 and for some weeks afterwards, First Lady Edith Wilson (October 15, 1872 — December 28, 1961) unofficially ran the U.S. government following her husband’s (then President Woodrow Wilson’s) life-changing stroke.

In all fairness:Section 3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

If your argument is based entirely on rate of fire, as noted already by Vociferous here, then you target all similar capable firearms, meaning any semi-automatic weapon (and any revolver in the hands of the competently trained)

Click to expand...

So modify the argument. I have no objection to improving the argument by taking combinations of factors into account. Go for it.
The comparison was to a Ruger Mini 14, iirc. That's a long way from "any semi-automatic weapon". That's not a direction of the argument that will work for you.

Better get busy contributing your expertise to the new laws. Because the combination of fire rate and magazine size and all the rest (no sense limiting one's considerations) the AR-15 presents is going to be severely restricted, one way or another.

There is a reason the Texas Militia specifies "AR-15 or equivalent", and not "any old semi-automatic you have lying around" - Agreed? Start there.

some people label the AR-15 as a military grade weapon: it's not. it's only capable of semi-automatic fire. It looks scary, but it's no different than any other semi-automatic .223 hunting rifle.

Click to expand...

It is capable of more rapid fire - somewhat, anyway - than a normal hunting rifle. Vociferous, I believe, posted a comparison earlier.
It is also designed to be easily modified in certain ways - you know that, right? That's a key feature of its marketing, I've noticed.
And it easily accommodates large capacity magazines - built for it.
And so forth.
(We have arrived at ammunition, btw - another area of expertise)

It takes 1-5 seconds (depending on training) to change a magazine. Are they going to limit how many magazines you carry? CA (etc) has limits and what, exactly, has it done? Is there an effect on crime?

Click to expand...

In which case there is no particular reason for their existence, and you lose nothing by the compromise.
Also: the contents of the magazines.

it's truly not getting anywhere near the same attention the gun control advocates are getting.

Click to expand...

And a look at the history of such matters tells you why - Republican Party opposition is one big reason (the screening, mental health, enforcement, social work, etc has not just been neglected - it's been fought against. There are school systems whose police forces have military assault vehicles and no mental health liaison, directly due to Republican Party initiatives.).

But this is a gun control thread. Is your argument that the lack of these other good things has been preventing sane gun control in the US?

It is capable of more rapid fire - somewhat, anyway - than a normal hunting rifle. Vociferous, I believe, posted a comparison earlier.

Click to expand...

the rate of fire is dependent on the individual using said weapon and the cycle speed of the weapon

AR-15: 45–60 rounds/min semi-automatic

9mm Glock handgun: 40 rpm

Click to expand...

so, if "A semi-automatic firearm, or self-loading firearm, is one that not only fires a bullet each time the trigger is pulled, but also performs all steps necessary to prepare it to discharge again—assuming cartridges remain in the firearm's feed device." (wiki - linked)

then this means that a sufficiently gifted person who is capable can pull the trigger considerably faster than a geriatric arthritis patient shooting for the first time

I don't know anyone who can pull the trigger faster than the AR can cycle.

rate of fire is illogical unless you're talking military weapons, and those are already restricted by law, so the continued additional restrictions is nonsensical. There are times when you don't want to have a slow rate of fire or a weapon that is intentionally inhibited due to arbitrary restrictions in the law.

sarcasm noted
the point still stands: banning the "assault weapon" will not change the school shooting problem or the desire of a criminal to shoot up a school. this is especially true when the media feeds the problem by giving the criminal the desired attention they crave.

Maybe you should be advocating for limiting the Media from utilising the names and images of mass shooters?
it makes more sense than banning an inanimate object because the user did something illegal with it

It is also designed to be easily modified in certain ways - you know that, right? That's a key feature of its marketing, I've noticed.

Click to expand...

ease of modification is a design selling point for almost every firearm in recent years. You can modify the Ruger .223 hunting rifle to look like the "assault weapon" AR styled platform. looks are irrelevant. (see links in "hunting rifle" and "assault weapon")
those are the same weapon with modifications to one that you can do at home without requiring a gunsmith, etc.

so it's irrational to argue that modification point as the internet literally teaches anyone who seeks the information how to make their legally purchased weapon into an illegal weapon.
at that point, the law can prosecute the offender if caught.

the only way to combat this for any weapon would be to limit free speech or build a national firewall to inhibit data.

And it easily accommodates large capacity magazines - built for it.
And so forth.

Click to expand...

large capacity is an arbitrary term and requires specific definition. It's nonsensical to limit the capacity of the magazine as this only inhibits the law abiding citizen. A criminal, by definition, doesn't obey the law so will not adhere to magazine restrictions.

In which case there is no particular reason for their existence, and you lose nothing by the compromise.

Click to expand...

wrong
the large capacity is functional in situations where it may be necesarry to defense.
case in point: Grizzly
you don't want to be attempting to change magazines several times while shooting a charging griz

But this is a gun control thread. Is your argument that the lack of these other good things has been preventing sane gun control in the US?

Click to expand...

Nope
my argument is that the core problem isn't the tool, so focusing on controlling the gun is not logical, especially in light of the existing problems with existing laws where states (etc) don't always comply properly, like background checks

there is no such thing as "gun violence"
there is violence.
period.
full stop.

The gun is an inanimate object tooled for the purpose of sending a projectile down range. A gun can only "do" three things: function, fail, and rust.that is it.

it takes human interaction to be violent.

so "gun control" for stopping school shootings is not logical any more than "lighter control" is for stopping arsonists - a look at the history of such matters tells you:
if gun control worked, the signs at the school would stop the criminal and shootings like Columbine would never have happened.

so... there is a known criminal who obtains a firearm and is already known to the FBI as being anti-government and you think adding another law will correct the problem?
What would be your solution to these top countries?

The bureau says usually, these individuals believe the law doesn't apply to them and don't have to pay taxes or follow other norms. They believe governments are illegal and gravitate to conspiracy theories.

Click to expand...

so as such, no US law would apply to him in his opinion, therefore he would not abide by any greater legislation around any firearm

making tighter restrictions would not have worked on him.

2- LE was already aware he was at least a threat and probably delusional:
he was arrested outside the white house by the secret service
he has a record in Illinois

it would have been far more beneficial had the law been enforced or mental health treatment been provided.

3- From CNN

Reinking's parents had called emergency services to report their son believed pop star Taylor Swift was stalking him, and he had made comments about killing himself.

Click to expand...

again, mental health issue

so, just on the Waffle House shooting, we can see that, like the FL shooting, the shooter was already a known potential threat and mental health issue. The LE failed to enforce existing laws and the community and family failed to chapter and get the treatment needed for said person. Because I can't see his medical record, I can't say if he was receiving treatment but I can guess that he was getting substandard treatment if any at all simply because that is typical in the US.

What would have stopped this shooter is better mental health and medical treatment and LE enforcement.

rate of fire is illogical unless you're talking military weapons, and those are already restricted by law, so the continued additional restrictions is nonsensical.

Click to expand...

Except in the case of weapons that can be more easily fired at high rates by the unskilled, and/or can be easily modified to produce automatic fire - designed to make circumventing the ban on automatics easy

And of course those with large magazines, so that rapid fire is more easily sustainable and targets have no interruptions to take advantage of.

the large capacity is functional in situations where it may be necesarry to defense.
case in point: Grizzly
you don't want to be attempting to change magazines several times while shooting a charging griz

Click to expand...

You're hunting grizzly bears with a .223? You carry a semiautomatic with multiple 30 round clips when you hike backcountry in Denali - or do you bring a sherpa? Exactly how many accurate shots do you think you have time for if a grizzly bear is charging you (you've got maybe 3 seconds)?
Oh wait, you're joking. Ha ha, good one, but let's get back to the topic.

Are your facts based upon documented statements in history or is it your opinion based upon interpretations of documents of history?

If it's the former, please link it
if it's the latter, it's not necesarrily a fact

you can only change how the 2nd is interpreted. By all means, please show where the second amendment doesn't actually state that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed in any link that quotes the Constitution.

That is factual and supported by the above source links and references I produced. so as I was not "acting all aggrieved and outraged", your argument is irrational and nonsensical

Click to expand...

no you were acting aggrieved and out raged its kinda of your go to move. no irrational and nonsensical is calling someone a troll simply because they disagree with your propaganda. i've study history and law here. you like most gun nuts, and you are objectively a nut i recall my previous interactions with you, feel like only are allowed to have a valid opinion on guns. if it disagrees with you it must be wrong.

QUOTE="spidergoat, post: 3515748, member: 9733"]
IMHO - people have a negative bias towards the AR due to it's visual similarity to the M-16. It's irrational and not logical. all bullets are designed to do damage or kill, so targeting a specific bullet makes as much sense as targeting all coloured arrows that aren't high-visability orange to be banned because it's hard to see them coming.

Click to expand...

your opinions shit. its not visually similar, its literally the same fucking gun with the selective fire disabled and different barrel threading. the 223. remington and the 5.56x45mm nato are identical cartridges the m-16 is what became when the colt offered the ar-15 as a replacement to the m-14. there was no material difference between the 2 in fact the very first m-16 were identical to the ar-15.

Unless you intend to institutionalize every one in the USA it will always be a mental health issue.
No mental health system will prevent a nutter getting hold of a gun especially if he can buy it so easily.
Any one prepared to shoot up a school or fire down on a crowd at a casino is always a nut job.
How do you prevent a nutter from getting guns if you don't seriously regulate their supply?

Keeping in mind that any one prepared to shoot up a school doesn't necessarily show symptoms of severe mental health issues until they actually go in there and do the deed.

my argument is that the core problem isn't the tool, so focusing on controlling the gun is not logical, especially in light of the existing problems with existing laws where states (etc) don't always comply properly, like background checks

Click to expand...

If the attitude displayed in this thread is any indication of the attitude of law enforcement is this little wonder?
and also Australia begs to differ from your assessment or are you suggesting the Australian situation is bull shit?

so if you want to add legislation limiting the rate of fire it needs to address the person in particular. legislation banning or limiting rate of fire would require restraints on the person.
nonsensical

Except in the case of weapons that can be more easily fired at high rates by the unskilled, and/or can be easily modified to produce automatic fire - designed to make circumventing the ban on automatics easy

Click to expand...

so long as there is a firearm, idiots will attempt (in any way) to modify it for purposes outside it's original tooled purpose.
also note: revolvers can also be fired as fast as a semi-automatic weapon (see: Bob Munden). modern shooters can be similarly quick.

again: the only functional legislation to limit these modifications is limiting free speech and access to data via the internet.

If the statistics show the overwhelming deaths via gun are suicide and that most crimes are comitted with a handgun, then why should we be targeting "assault weapons" and semi-automatic rifles?

It's nonsensical and by design becuase it looks scary to some people ignorant of firearms. this means you're advocating for illogical and ineffective legislation out of fear and irrational belief, not because it will be effective.

if that is the case then I suggest you also advocate for limiting cell phones to only work when not in a car, or to advocate for limiting car speeds (and engine power) to mitigate death.

That is a blank claim without evidence, and kind of unlikely on its face. Do you have an argument?

Click to expand...

it's linked in my comment. more below.

school shootings/killings are driven predominantly by mental health issues and the desire to harm others. This wasn't stopped by the former assault weapons ban. After the Columbine circus, it became "more popular" as it was an international melee by media. the criminal is more popular than the saviour due to the media tactics.

This mentality feeds off of attention for various reasons. So long as the media cover the killer with the same current tactics, they will continue and even increase for various reasons that including bullying and mental health issues along with said media circus. This isn't news as it's been studied by the FBI and there have been LE Bullitens on the subject.

So the issue is predominantly a mental health issue, yet not really one that is easily dealt with. The problem will not be slowed by limiting "assault weapons". it will only be dealt with by dealing with mental health issues and increasing funding for LE, Courts and Mental Health facilities to deal with the increased traffic - something that is not being advocatedin the general public, nor is it even addressed by the political parties in power.

so it was not a blank claim, nor is it without evidence as we can see from history and the current FBI, BJS, and DSM-V data

the latest FL shooting is evidence that the law and local/federal authorities failed horrendously.
it also underscores my continually reiterated point that we have functional laws when enforced, especially with Maryland and Everett in the picture as evidence for the effectiveness of current law when enforced.

Oh wait, you're joking. Ha ha, good one, but let's get back to the topic.

Click to expand...

no, I wasn't joking.
I was carrying my service issued M-16 during training. It wasn't a choice and I wasn't hunting

it highlights an important point: I understand the need for high capacity magazines because I've had to use them, in and out of the military.
There are circumstances where larger capacities are necesarry or even life savers

My back yard is many, many square miles of wild woodland and grassy area - we have predators ranging from Puma and Bear to Bobcat, feral dogs (very dangerous), wild and feral Pig (also very dangerous) and poachers (the most dangerous).